Wednesday, April 2, 2014

The McCutcheon Case Reax: A Victory for Free Speech

Below are a few reactions to the Supreme Court decision
for free speech and striking down so-called aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission.

—U.S. Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement today after the Supreme
Court struck down limits on overall campaign contributions to candidates,
political parties and political action committees. McConnell had filed an
amicus brief, which was argued on his behalf by counsel, in the case, Shaun
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

“The Supreme Court has once
again reminded Congress that Americans have a Constitutional First Amendment
right to speak and associate with political candidates and parties of their
choice. In Shaun McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, the court did not
strike down individual contribution limits to candidates, political action
committees or parties. But the court did recognize that it is the right of the
individual, and not the prerogative of Congress, to determine how many
candidates and parties to support. Let
me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit
one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party -- it just
respects the Constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to
support.”

The named plaintiff in the case, Shaun McCutcheon,
response is excerpted below:

Today the United States
Supreme Court took a stand in favor of our Constitutional Freedom of Speech as
codified in our First Amendment. First
Amendment Free Speech enables us to support candidates for public office who
share our views. While I understand some
base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall
number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary
limits to 1st amendment freedom. The
Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits.

With the ruling, we continue
to chip away at the long entrenched status quo from the grassroots - a status
quo that has kept challengers, better ideas, and new entrants to the political
arena mostly locked out. Ensuring that
citizens are able to contribute to multiple candidates or causes who share
their views only provides further support to a system in which "We the
People" hold the ultimate reins of power.

I commend the Supreme Court
for their decision to defend our freedom.

Reince Priebus, Chairman of
the Republican National Committee (the “other” McCutcheon plaintiff) commented:

“Today’s
decision is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates
and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust,
transparent political discourse. I am pleased that the Court agreed that limits
on how many candidates or committees a person may support unconstitutionally
burden core First Amendment political activities. When free speech is allowed
to flourish, our democracy is stronger.”

James Bopp, Jr., lead
attorney for RNC in the case and former RNLA Vice President for Election Education
stated:

“This is a great triumph for the First
Amendment. A robust republic requires free speech and association, which means
no limits on how many candidates an individual may support with a legal
contribution. Congress allows contributions to nine candidates, but not ten.
How could giving to candidate number ten cause any corruption if giving to
candidates one through nine doesn’t?”

“This is also a great victory for political
parties, who have been disadvantaged recently by the rise of super-PACs.
Political parties serve vital purposes, such as tempering polarization, and
this is a step in the right direction to re-empower them,” adds Bopp.

Furthermore, says Bopp: “The Court also rejected
the FEC’s ‘wild hypotheticals’ about corruption that suggest fanciful scenarios
that are otherwise illegal under current federal law. First Amendment rights
cannot be suppressed by mere speculation or a vivid imagination.”

RNLA Chair Randy Evans
summed up the effect of the decision:

“The implications for the upcoming Senate and
House elections cannot be understated based on the Supreme Court’s
decision. Rather than have to limit the
candidates they support, Americans can now support as many Senate and House
candidates as they want along with all three of the national political
organizations.”